To show the empty "logic" that Jack Cafferty of CNN employs in his political commentary all one need do is check out his September 16 Political Ticker blog post on why the race for the White House is so tight in the polls. Reason: the country is filled with racists. Yes, folks, if you are voting against Obama (and no matter who or what you are actually supporting and why) it must be because you are a racist. It isn't because you stand against what Obama stands for, it has to be because you are a racist.

This delusional, preconceived notion is becoming the excuse du jour with Democrat supporters that have lately seen a dawning hint that McCain may just win this election. And, that is really all it is, too. An excuse. An excuse that ignores all the warts and obvious problems with Barack Obama, his record, and the fantasy stage show that is his campaign.

Here is what Cafferty posted:

Will race be the factor that keeps Obama from the White House?

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it's one that nobody's talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn't be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense…unless it's race.

Time magazine's Michael Grunwald says race is the elephant in the room. He says Barack Obama needs to tread lightly as he fights back against the McCain-Palin campaign attacks.

Let's devastate this absurd argument line by line...

His first line after the initial question claims that "nobody's talking" about the race factor in Obama's bid for the White House. What planet is this guy watching the campaign from, anyway? Nearly every single pundit, political maven, and news caster has brought up the race angle since the day Obama announced his intention to run.

Since day one it has been claimed that Obama's run for president is an "historic" one. Well, what does "historic" mean if it isn't because he's the first black man to win the nomination of a major political party to run for the top job? It sure isn't because he's male or a Democrat. In case Cafferty isn't aware, there have been more than a handful of male Democrats that have run for the White House in the past.

On top of that, Obama has thrown out the race card dozens of times, himself. Where Cafferty gets the crazy, uninformed idea that "nobody" is talking about race is anybody's guess. All Jackie would have had to do was Google Race plus Obama and my guess is he'd get more than a hit or two!

Now, paragraph two is so free of reason and logic that it boggles the mind. And it serves not only to make his argument absurd, it shows what a failure he is as a political analyst.

Cafferty says that the difference between the two candidates "couldn't be more well-defined." That is a fair statement. Then he follows that with a lie so brazen that it chokes in the throat.

Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy.

Cafferty just plain lied here. McCain has an actual record of challenging Washington. He's done it for decades and raised the ire of his own party by being the "maverick" too many times to mention. Obama has talked a lot about change, sure, yet he has no history... not one scintilla of a record... of ever having changed anything. He's never challenged the Senate. He's never challenged his party. He never even challenged the status quo of corrupt Daley machine politics of Chicago when he was in state government back in Illinois. In fact, he benefitted quite handsomely from that corrupt system.

Then Cafferty, employing his Einstein-like powers of observation, gives us this trenchant analysis:

Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense…unless it's race.

First of all, Einstein, the electorate itself has been closely hewn in half since the Clinton years -- heck even since Reagan realigned politics in this country. So, that reason alone could easily account for the close split in the polls today. But to ascribe it solely to race, while at the same time offering no real proof, demonstrates Cafferty's utter lack of understanding anything in this campaign or this country.

Further, his sheer astonishment is based on a central assumption that also proves he has no capacity to understand American culture and politics and should, therefore, never be taken seriously as a political commentator. Cafferty's amazement that anyone could possibly want to support McCain is based solely on his assumption that Barrack is clearly 100% right on all points. This assumption is so blindly partisan that it admits not one shred of understanding that there truly is a substantive difference between the philosophy behind Republican thinking and that of Democrats. It assumes that Democrats are all 100% correct in their political philosophy and that Republicans are merely racists for not following along.

Are there people who won't vote for Obama because he's black? Surely there are. Is it the predominant reason that millions won't vote for him? What proof of this is there? Further, there were many millions who didn't vote for Obama in the primaries for the reason that he isn't a woman. Did Cafferty attack every femenazi for their assertion that people should vote Hillary because she was a she and not a he? If so, I'd like to see it.

Cafferty completely misses the salient fact that millions of Americans stand against Barack Obama because they feel his ideas are anti-capitalist, anti-military, pro-Eropean policies that pull against American exceptionalism. They see his terrorist pals, his racebaiting pastors, his wife who isn't proud of her country and they wonder why they should vote for such a person?

Cafferty is so blind to the real reasons that people vote the way that they do that he simply blows off the whole closely split political balance with the shadowy excuse of rampant American "racism." This failure of Cafferty's totally discredits him as a political observer.

Now, it is perfectly possible to assume that the "other" half of the electorate is wholly wrong in its thinking as Cafferty clearly does, and still be an effective political analyst (Michael Barone and Brit Hume are prime examples of this). For example, the philosophy behind the Democrats has long ago strayed from what it once was to a philosophy closer to a Euroesque amalgam of socialism, and populism. Democrats ceased being truly American in their thinking many decades ago. So, yes, they are horribly wrong. But to discount that those ideas exist and are a major player in American politics is simply absurd. So discounting that "other" side that it interferes with your ability to see the whole of the electorate dooms serious political analysis.

This, in truth, is where Cafferty has ended up. He so hates traditional American conservatism, so despises and discounts the Republican Party that he can't even admit that many millions of Americans hold to those principles and will vote that way because of them. To Cafferty, no one is voting McCain because they adhere to Republican principles, they are just racists against Obama.

Lastly, in his final sentence, Cafferty uses someone else's words to cement for us the fact that he has none of his own to offer.

Cafferty's thinking process makes him completely unfit to be a political analyst. And his blog post severs as a prime example of why.